Support NeoGAF

[GaimeGuy]

It was the framing of the incident that was off, considering the visible marks of struggle that Zimmerman had. It's hard to comprehend what happened that night.

We know what happend. George unfairly profiled Trayvon. George was armed. Trayvon was unarmed. George chased trayvon in his car. Trayvon moved away from the roads to get away from George (And George understood this, since he told the cops trayvon was fleeing.) George grabbed his gun, parked his car, removed himself from the safety of his own vehicle, and continued to pursue Trayvon on foot through terrain his car couldn't traverse.

A fight broke out, George suffered minor injures, and trayvon was killed.

Hardly a series of events and set of actions that excuse the death of a minor. Yet the perpetrator got off because oh no, george might have been in over his head, and the outcome of death was not 100% impossible in any part of the multiverse depicting all possible ways the scenario could have played out.

 

[GungHo]

What medical expenses does he have?

Before the shooting, he was on Adderall and Restoril (temazepam). If he's not insured, that's not cheap shit if his pharmacy isn't giving him any breaks... nor are the trips to the doctor to get the prescription updated (usually that kind of stuff is every three months). Additionally, he gained weight pretty quickly before the trial and he's continuing to exhibit odd behavior so he might have incurred additional illness since then.

 

[abadguy]

Hopefully this is the last we hear of him, he fades into obscurity and lives a completely normal ass life. As a killer, I think that's the best he can hope for.

A lot better than what Trayvon or his family got, that's for damned sure.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Except there should be no reasonable doubt. The gun must have been removed from its holster before Trayvon straddled George, he wouldn't have been able to reach it otherwise, based on the proposed positioning. At that point, George had only been shoved, or maybe hit once. In other words, he immediately drew his gun, then Trayvon closed in on him... which is exactly what Trayvon, or any person, would do once they spot a gun (because you can't outrun a gunshot.)

The gun was drawn either before George was straddled and after trayvon had knocked him to the ground, or before trayvon had knocked george to the ground. combined with the circumstances leading up to the first physical blows, I just don't see how there's reasonable doubt. Just because someone shoves you doesn't give you the right to escalate to threat of lethal force and draw your gun. And it's unreasonable to automatically assume your life is in danger because someone had the balls to shove you or hit you after you chased them around the neighborhood and pursued them when they very clearly tried to get away from you.

Casual racism is what gave Zimmerman such a ridiculous amount of leeway in his actions, but damned trayvon to death when he was much more restrained and passive.

You can think what you want, but you have to prove it in American courts. It's your constitutional right The prosecution failed to prove beyond any feasible counterargument that Zimmerman pulled his gun out before being attacked. You may very well be right. Zimmerman may have pulled a gun and said 'freeze, asshole!' but there's simply no proof. Hypothetical presumptions aren't considered substantial enough in our country.

It may be hard to deal with it, but even a guilty man walking free because of a lack of evidence is a good thing. (Not everybody can agree with this concept, so I expect the usual backlash I get whenever I try to discuss ethics.) Courts have been lying, intimidating, and scaring innocent people into convictions for hundreds of years. If you bend the rules and convict a man without proper evidence, you may one day find yourself stripped of your own rights, as well. We can't have that. If Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd degree murder, prove it, and let's put him away. If you can't, you have an ethical and Constitutional obligation to acquit because that's his right to a fair trial as an American citizen.

 

[King Cobra]

For a second I though this was about this guy

 

[akira28]

George Zimmerman: Dead.

it's coming

 

[neogaffer1]

I understand people are upset that Zimmerman was acquitted but to be happy that he's now broke and in debt is incredibly brutal and disgusting--you shouldn't want someone to suffer just because they didn't get the punishment you wanted them to. Also, saying Trayvon was an "innocent child" might be technically correct but it's a very loaded phrase and so that's why I can see someone arguing to not use that.

Lastly, Zimmerman might be seen as racist but that is more of an issue in society than Zimmerman himself--our society views young African American men as more dangerous than young men of other ethnicities. It is a problem but it's not limited to Zimmerman and punishing him won't do anything about it in the same way that punishing a man in the 1950s for being sexist wouldn't have really done anything--it's part of the culture and public awareness and a more open-minded younger generation is the best way to combat it, not punishing those who have been told to think that way all of their life.

 

[Dram]

Its sad, but all he has to do is write a book about his life. There's so many people who look up to him like he's a hero, that it wouldn't surprise me if he became millionaire from selling it.

 

[vas_a_morir]

George Zimmerman: Dead.

it's coming

Suicide or drugs. Or, wild card, sudden catastrophic health issue. It's coming.

 

[Jigorath]

Its sad, but all he has to do is write a book about his life. There's so many people who look up to him like he's a hero, that it wouldn't surprise me if he became millionaire from selling it.

Worked for OJ.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Worked for OJ.

They didn't publish it, did they? They should have.

 

[Yoda]

Its sad, but all he has to do is write a book about his life. There's so many people who look up to him like he's a hero, that it wouldn't surprise me if he became millionaire from selling it.

It'd sell quite well if he had the right people make the book for him. A good book dealing with the events of the murder and tieing it to liberal america in some bullshit way would sell quite a bit due to the publicity right-wing media would give it.

 

[Aylinato]

Well, I know what they could have NOT done. Not gone for a murder 2 charge, perhaps.

I agree with this. It was a huge mistake given the evidence

 

[Jmanunknown]

I understand people are upset that Zimmerman was acquitted but to be happy that he's now broke and in debt is incredibly brutal and disgusting--you shouldn't want someone to suffer just because they didn't get the punishment you wanted them to. Also, saying Trayvon was an "innocent child" might be technically correct but it's a very loaded phrase and so that's why I can see someone arguing to not use that.

The phrase innocent child is not a loaded phrase in this instance. Trayvon was under 18 walking home alone from the store and he is all of sudden being followed by a stranger with a loaded gun who ultimately killed him. Do you believe he was guilty of something that night? Would you be scared if a guy starts following you for no reason and come to find out he carrying a loaded gun?

Lastly, Zimmerman might be seen as racist but that is more of an issue in society than Zimmerman himself--our society views young African American men as more dangerous than young men of other ethnicities. It is a problem but it's not limited to Zimmerman and punishing him won't do anything about it in the same way that punishing a man in the 1950s for being sexist wouldn't have really done anything--it's part of the culture and public awareness and a more open-minded younger generation is the best way to combat it, not punishing those who have been told to think that way all of their life.

You can not blame society for George Zimmerman being a horrible person. No one forced him to be a racist and kill Trayvon Martin he did that by himself. Blaming society for his actions in this instance just seems like deflecting blame.

 

[akira28]

Suicide or drugs. Or, wild card, sudden catastrophic health issue. It's coming.

vas_a_morir
It ain't a request, bitch.
(Today, 03:25 PM)

 

[neogaffer1]

The phrase innocent child is not a loaded phrase in this instance. Trayvon was under 18 walking home alone from the store and he is all of sudden being followed by a stranger with a loaded gun who ultimately killed him. Do you believe he was guilty of something that night? Would you be scared if a guy starts following you for no reason and come to find out he carrying a loaded gun?

It's still a very loaded phrase, especially when you take into account the injuries that Zimmerman sustained--whether he made the first move or not, to say that Martin was innocent is a bit far. Even not considering those, whenever someone uses the phrase "innocent child," the connotation is almost always a very young, vulnerable child. As a result it's very loaded and somewhat misleading to use it in this circumstance.

You can not blame society for George Zimmerman being a horrible person. No one forced him to be a racist and kill Trayvon Martin he did that by himself. Blaming society for his actions in this instance just seems like deflecting blame.

He saw a young African American man walking in his neighborhood and assumed that person is dangerous. He went after that person, and in the resulting struggle he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The only point of racism is him seeing Martin wearing a hoodie and thinking that he was dangerous. This amount of racism is terrible and shouldn't be commonplace, but it is and Zimmerman isn't being more racist than most people by having that assumption. It's similar in how stop and frisk resulted in African American men being stopped much more often than men of other ethnicities and how African American men are less likely to be found innocent in a courtroom.

Punishing Zimmerman for believing something American society and culture has largely accepted as a whole really just doesn't make much sense to me. I consider myself a Democrat and while I do feel that racism is still a major problem in our society making Zimmerman's personal racial views a contention point where the point of contention should be whether Zimmerman shot in self-defense or not bothers me. While race is a factor in this case it's not the only factor nor is it the biggest.

I've found that many who wanted Zimmerman to be found guilty hold those viewpoints not because he killed a young man but that (they believe) he is a raging racist who killed someone because of their race, something that a jury has found did not happen. While I agree he is being racist by viewing Martin as dangerous, punishing him for that means that most people in the US should be punished--that level of racism is something we as a society needs to work on, not act disgusted when it shows up and act like it's out of the ordinary.

 

[Maxim726X]

Worked for OJ.

Hearing about the existence of this book made me legitimately angry when I first heard about it years ago... Fuck that guy. He really did get off easy.

On topic- Fucker deserves worse. Maybe another vigilante fuckwad with a gun will be patrolling the streets and run into this piece of shit one day, wearing a hoodie. Because that's all you need to be a threat to society.

 

[wildfire]

I had the shittiest work day possible. This made me smile.

 

[GaimeGuy]

I understand people are upset that Zimmerman was acquitted but to be happy that he's now broke and in debt is incredibly brutal and disgusting--you shouldn't want someone to suffer just because they didn't get the punishment you wanted them to. Also, saying Trayvon was an "innocent child" might be technically correct but it's a very loaded phrase and so that's why I can see someone arguing to not use that.

It's not loaded. He was visiting family. He walked to a 7/11 to get some skittles for his stepbrother and an iced tea for himself. He never made it home.

I'm not black, but for the last 4 years of my life, I've lived across the street from a gas station. And before that, I lived 4 years on a college campus. In other words, for the last 8 years, I've been well acquainted with the act of walking to the convenience store for a snack somewhere between dusk and bed time. Especially since up until 2 years ago, I didn't drive.

the idea that some creep could kill me doing while I was doing such a mundane thing and admit to doing so after a series of actions like following me around wherever I go even when I try to get away from him), and the law would let him off the hook and smear the character of my dead corpse INFURIATES me. Everyone KNEW this piece of shit killed a child. Everyone KNEW this child was not a threat to him. Everyone KNEW George was acting irresponsibly and in aggressive manner. Everyone KNEW this child was simply going to the convenience store. YET NO ONE CARES THAT THIS PIECE OF SHIT ENDED HIS LIFE. THAT CHILD IS DEAD. GONE. FINISHED. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT GEORGE SHOULD BE LEGALLY PUNISHED FOR TAKING THAT CHILD'S LIFE AWAY. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT THE CHILD'S DEATH WAS LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, OR THAT HE DIDN'T FORFEIT HIS RIGHT TO LIFE. NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

"reasonable doubt" my ass, use your fucking brains, then you'll see that there's no doubt to be had.

Edit: Especially since this man says that Even knowing in retrospect that Trayvon was not, in fact, the criminal he thought he was, he doesn't regret any of his actions. He wouldn't change a thing he did. He feels no remorse for killing a child. Those are not the feelings of an innocent man, but a stone cold hearted murderer

 

[Omegasquash]

I used to feel bad about not feeling bad for the misfortunes of others in many cases but this...I don't feel bad about this.

 

[diamount]

karma, whatever, bla bla bla - same old shit

 

[JDSN]

To fake lawyer-AGE I wanna apologice for using loaded words like "child with candy", I was not aware of the aparently unrealistic narrative it sets up, next time I will use more appropiate terms like "troubled youth" or Georgie's favorite (which I not doubt is not racist at all) "these punks".

 

[EatinOlives]

I understand people are upset that Zimmerman was acquitted but to be happy that he's now broke and in debt is incredibly brutal and disgusting--you shouldn't want someone to suffer just because they didn't get the punishment you wanted them to. Also, saying Trayvon was an "innocent child" might be technically correct but it's a very loaded phrase and so that's why I can see someone arguing to not use that.

Lastly, Zimmerman might be seen as racist but that is more of an issue in society than Zimmerman himself--our society views young African American men as more dangerous than young men of other ethnicities. It is a problem but it's not limited to Zimmerman and punishing him won't do anything about it in the same way that punishing a man in the 1950s for being sexist wouldn't have really done anything--it's part of the culture and public awareness and a more open-minded younger generation is the best way to combat it, not punishing those who have been told to think that way all of their life.

Very, very classic "but they're just a product of their time" defense of racists. I heard this baby last when it was used to justify Donald Sterling's comments.

You're probably already aware this is logic thrown around to apply to even the most blatant displays of racism. It's an easy-out argument to stifle discussion about a racially centered topic. "Yeah but everyone's racist so whaddaya gonna do".

 

[neogaffer1]

It's not loaded. He was visiting family. He walked to a 7/11 to get some skittles for his stepbrother and an iced tea for himself. He never made it home.

I'm not black, but for the last 4 years of my life, I've lived across the street from a gas station. And before that, I lived 4 years on a college campus. In other words, for the last 8 years, I've been well acquainted with the act of walking to the convenience store for a snack somewhere between dusk and bed time. Especially since up until 2 years ago, I didn't drive.

the idea that some creep could kill me doing while I was doing such a mundane thing and admit to doing so after a series of actions like following me around wherever I go even when I try to get away from him), and the law would let him off the hook and smear the character of my dead corpse INFURIATES me. Everyone KNEW this piece of shit killed a child. Everyone KNEW this child was not a threat to him. Everyone KNEW George was acting irresponsibly and in aggressive manner. Everyone KNEW this child was simply going to the convenience store. YET NO ONE CARES THAT THIS PIECE OF SHIT ENDED HIS LIFE. THAT CHILD IS DEAD. GONE. FINISHED. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT GEORGE SHOULD BE LEGALLY PUNISHED FOR TAKING THAT CHILD'S LIFE AWAY. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ON THE JURY THOUGHT THAT THE CHILD'S DEATH WAS LEGALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE, OR THAT HE DIDN'T FORFEIT HIS RIGHT TO LIFE. NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

"reasonable doubt" my ass, use your fucking brains, then you'll see that there's no doubt to be had.

Like I said before, the phrase "innocent child" is technically correct (especially if you ignore Zimmerman's account and assume he wasn't injured in any way even though the evidence shows otherwise) but it's still a loaded phrase due to its connotation (most people associate the phrase with a very young child, likely below 10, that's vulnerable and needs help). Secondly, I'm a 17-year-old male and I wouldn't consider myself a child, nor would I consider anybody my age a child, even if the law says I and other people my age are minors. Lastly, I do not disagree that Zimmerman took Martin's life but the argument is that he did so in self-defense, not that he didn't do it.

Very, very classic "but they're just a product of their time" defense of racists. I heard this baby last when it was used to justify Donald Sterling's comments.

You're probably already aware this is logic thrown around to apply to even the most blatant displays of racism. It's an easy-out argument to stifle discussion about a racially centered topic. "Yeah but everyone's racist so whaddaya gonna do".

All I'm saying is that it is a problem and we need to work on it as a society, not on a case-by-case basis. Punishing Zimmerman wouldn't do anything, especially when the racism wasn't the main issue in the case. If we want to end this type of racism, we need to do it through public awareness, not pretending everything is fine and then punishing anybody who proves it isn't so.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Like I said before, the phrase "innocent child" is technically correct (especially if you ignore Zimmerman's account and assume he wasn't injured in any way even though the evidence shows otherwise) but it's still a loaded phrase due to its connotation (most people associate the phrase with a very young child, likely below 10, that's vulnerable and needs help). Secondly, I'm a 17-year-old male and I wouldn't consider myself a child, nor would I consider anybody my age a child, even if the law says I and other people my age are minors. Lastly, I do not disagree that Zimmerman took Martin's life but the argument is that he did so in self-defense, not that he didn't do it.



All I'm saying is that it is a problem and we need to work on it as a society, not on a case-by-case basis. Punishing Zimmerman wouldn't do anything, especially when the racism wasn't the main issue in the case. If we want to end this type of racism, we need to do it through public awareness, not pretending everything is fine and then punishing anybody who proves it isn't so.

There is nothing defensive in nature about Zimmemran's actions that night.

 

[neogaffer1]

There is nothing defensive in nature about Zimmemran's actions that night.

The jury disagreed after being presented all of the evidence, and they were the ones to decide his fate.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The jury disagreed after being presented all of the evidence, and they were the ones to decide his fate.

And yet one of the jurors said he got off with murder. so much for doing your duty.

Fuckers didn't want to send a man away for 20 years because he killed a black kid that may have had the audacity to defend himself with force, and George may have unreasonably thought his life was in danger because he got a little boo boo. Little boo boo for georgey boy = bad. Giant hole in Trayvon's chest = good.

They're fools.

 

[perfectchaos007]

If he remains homeless for a while longer, he'll start to look pretty rough and sketchy. Hopefully no one he walks by gets startled and stands their ground near him

 

[Pai Pai Master]

"Innocent child." Such loaded terms! When I think of a child I think of a young person, innocently taking a walk down the street with candy in his pocket.

 

[diamount]

There is nothing defensive in nature about Zimmemran's actions that night.

Of course not, he murdered a child, a sweet, 5ft 11 child. Who had no intention of harming anyone.

 

[Xcellere]

Of course not, he murdered a child, a sweet, 5ft 11 child. Who had no intention of harming anyone.

Stay classy.

 

[HoodWinked]

lol this entire public spectacle is so fucking dumb in so many ways.

winners: lawyers, news commentary shows

 

[diamount]

Stay classy.

You support Zimmerman? You obvious racist you.

 

[Slayven]

Of course not, he murdered a child, a sweet, 5ft 11 child. Who had no intention of harming anyone.

Dat walking home from the store with ice tea and skittles. So threatening

 

[diamount]

Dat walking home from the store with ice tea and skittles. So threatening

Abso-fucking-lutely, Zimmerman obviously overpowered and executed the poor kid.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

Its sad, but all he has to do is write a book about his life. There's so many people who look up to him like he's a hero, that it wouldn't surprise me if he became millionaire from selling it.

Yeah, I came in to say this. I can't believe he doesn't have a ghost written book, book tour, and possible a licensing agent selling his brand to a line of holsters or something. Not to mention a recurring role on Fox News. I bet he could make bank charging for appearances at gun shows, too. (I've never been to a gun show, but I'm guessing they're like comic conventions with "celebrity" appearances). If he can't find a way to leverage his appeal, I don't know what to tell him.

Spoiler

Other than gfy

 

[EatinOlives]

All I'm saying is that it is a problem and we need to work on it as a society, not on a case-by-case basis. Punishing Zimmerman wouldn't do anything, especially when the racism wasn't the main issue in the case. If we want to end this type of racism, we need to do it through public awareness, not pretending everything is fine and then punishing anybody who proves it isn't so.

Zimmerman wasn't a "case-by-case basis". It was a highly publicized trial that garnered nationwide attention and was "the talking point" for several months. Those are the kinds of cases that shift public opinion if the outcome of the case was "dude, you fucking ran into a completely random person and automatically assumed he was a "thug" based on his demeanor and ended up killing him. Do you realize how racist and NOT OK this is?"

"We need to work on it as a society" says nothing. Again, it's an easy out. Yes we should all hold hands and have giant circle discussions encompassing entire cities for us to "work on it as a society". Oh but that doesn't happen. Darn. I guess back to the status quo we go. Very easy to make vague sweeping statements about how entire cultures should somehow make fundamental changes in the ways it views its own forms of institutionalized racism with no specifics whatsoever. It's this mentality that makes every single case feel like a "drop in the ocean". Oh this exact particular case won't suddenly shift a culture's viewpoint, so let's not bother. This next one? Same thing, let's not bother either. The one 4 years from now? Another drop, who cares. The one 10 years from now? Same. But if you did the opposite, if you grabbed every single case by the throat and showed, publicly, why this racially motivated incident was racially motivated, why this even happened in the first place, and why this shouldn't be happening, and if you keep doing it again and again, for this case, for the next, the one in 4 years, and the one in 10, you bet your ass you're going to start seeing a cultural shift. This is exactly why "movements" happen, to make a sustained effort to shatter the status quo.

But, in fact, what your'e not realizing is that pointing out the racial issues with cases like this would've actually been "working it out as a society", because this is what happens in a society. It was the microcosm of people's racial profiling, the trigger-happy nature of many dim-witted gun supporters, that was the background of this very high profile case. You make a clear statement in this platform, you take a small step into ending this status quo of subtle but equally hurtful racist undertones of many aspects of society. If you fail to do this, you take a small step in the opposite direction. Kicking the can down the road and waiting for some other incident so that we can maybe start making a serious effort gets absolutely nowhere, as is saying stuff like "it's about culture. We should change culture" with no further specifics of discussion provided whatsoever.

 

[neogaffer1]

Zimmerman was at fault for being racist and assuming a young African American man in his neighborhood was up to no good. He was at fault when he went after Martin even though the police dispatcher told him not to. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. If Zimmerman had just come up and shot Martin, he would be at fault. If he had confronted Martin and then shot him before anything else happened, he would be at fault. But what seemed to happen is that he confronted Martin and Martin acted in self-defense and attacked Zimmerman. In the resulting struggle, Zimmerman sustained injuries to the face and back of the head, and he ended up shooting Martin. It's an unfortunate series of events for Martin--he was being followed by a shady person he didn't know, then acted in what he viewed as self-defense against that man. Zimmerman was being racist when he stereotyped Martin. He was being jumpy and irresponsible when he went after Martin. But he acted in self-defense when he shot Martin while being beaten up. One has to assume that if Martin hadn't acted in that way, Zimmerman would not have shot him, but you can't blame Martin to act in self-defense, and you can't blame Zimmerman for acting in self-defense when he fired that gun. Blame Zimmerman for being racist, blame Zimmerman for being irresponsible but the trial was whether Zimmerman had acted in self-defense and the jury ruled that that was what happened, even if one of the jurors said that it was murder.

Zimmerman wasn't a "case-by-case basis". It was a highly publicized trial that garnered nationwide attention and was "the talking point" for several months. Those are the kinds of cases that shift public opinion if the outcome of the case was "dude, you fucking ran into a completely random person and automatically assumed he was a "thug" based on his demeanor and ended up killing him. Do you realize how racist and NOT OK this is?"

"We need to work on it as a society" says nothing. Again, it's an easy out. Yes we should all hold hands and have giant circle discussions encompassing entire cities for us to "work on it as a society". Oh but that doesn't happen. Darn. I guess back to the status quo we go. Very easy to make vague sweeping statements about how entire cultures should somehow make fundamental changes in the ways it views its own forms of institutionalized racism with no specifics whatsoever. It's this mentality that makes every single case feel like a "drop in the ocean". Oh this exact particular case won't suddenly shift a culture's viewpoint, so let's not bother. This next one? Same thing, let's not bother either. The one 4 years from now? Another drop, who cares. The one 10 years from now? Same. But if you did the opposite, if you grabbed every single case by the throat and showed, publicly, why this racially motivated incident was racially motivated, why this even happened in the first place, and why this shouldn't be happening, and if you keep doing it again and again, for this case, for the next, the one in 4 years, and the one in 10, you bet your ass you're going to start seeing a cultural shift. This is exactly why "movements" happen, to make a sustained effort to shatter the status quo.

But, in fact, what your'e not realizing is that pointing out the racial issues with cases like this would've actually been "working it out as a society", because this is what happens in a society. It was the microcosm of people's racial profiling, the trigger-happy nature of many dim-witted gun supporters, that was the background of this very high profile case. You make a clear statement in this platform, you take a small step into ending this status quo of subtle but equally hurtful racist undertones of many aspects of society. If you fail to do this, you take a small step in the opposite direction. Kicking the can down the road and waiting for some other incident so that we can maybe start making a serious effort gets absolutely nowhere, as is saying stuff like "it's about culture. We should change culture" with no further specifics of discussion provided whatsoever.

I understand what you're saying, and I have to say I agree for the most part. However, unlike the Emmett Till case or many of the other high profile cases regarding race, justice wouldn't have been served if we had found Zimmerman guilty just for being a racist, and instead it would have been better to host discussions and bring attention as a culture to this issue using this case as a discussion point. Even then, changes happen with public awareness and as new generations become more open-minded and are pressured to let go of old thoughts and accept new ones, something that can/is happening without the need to compromise on justice in instances such as this. As I've stated in other places. the point of contention in the Trayvon Martin case wasn't racism--it was whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

 

[BlackJace]

Zimmerman wasn't a "case-by-case basis". It was a highly publicized trial that garnered nationwide attention and was "the talking point" for several months. Those are the kinds of cases that shift public opinion if the outcome of the case was "dude, you fucking ran into a completely random person and automatically assumed he was a "thug" based on his demeanor and ended up killing him. Do you realize how racist and NOT OK this is?"

"We need to work on it as a society" says nothing. Again, it's an easy out. Yes we should all hold hands and have giant circle discussions encompassing entire cities for us to "work on it as a society". Oh but that doesn't happen. Darn. I guess back to the status quo we go. Very easy to make vague sweeping statements about how entire cultures should somehow make fundamental changes in the ways it views its own forms of institutionalized racism with no specifics whatsoever. It's this mentality that makes every single case feel like a "drop in the ocean". Oh this exact particular case won't suddenly shift a culture's viewpoint, so let's not bother. This next one? Same thing, let's not bother either. The one 4 years from now? Another drop, who cares. The one 10 years from now? Same. But if you did the opposite, if you grabbed every single case by the throat and showed, publicly, why this racially motivated incident was racially motivated, why this even happened in the first place, and why this shouldn't be happening, and if you keep doing it again and again, for this case, for the next, the one in 4 years, and the one in 10, you bet your ass you're going to start seeing a cultural shift. This is exactly why "movements" happen, to make a sustained effort to shatter the status quo.

But, in fact, what your'e not realizing is that pointing out the racial issues with cases like this would've actually been "working it out as a society", because this is what happens in a society. It was the microcosm of people's racial profiling, the trigger-happy nature of many dim-witted gun supporters, that was the background of this very high profile case. You make a clear statement in this platform, you take a small step into ending this status quo of subtle but equally hurtful racist undertones of many aspects of society. If you fail to do this, you take a small step in the opposite direction. Kicking the can down the road and waiting for some other incident so that we can maybe start making a serious effort gets absolutely nowhere, as is saying stuff like "it's about culture. We should change culture" with no further specifics of discussion provided whatsoever.

Brilliant post. It's such a cop out when people try to shutdown the conversation by playing to "society as a whole". Racism is so deeply integrated into society that attempts to throw large blankets over it wouldn't produce change. I also love your point about attacking each similar case like this by the throat. The sooner we start to make examples of these bigots, the more cases like this will start to die down. The verdict of this case alone further strengthens the mindset of these folks who think it's okay to do this.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Zimmerman was at fault for being racist and assuming a young African American man in his neighborhood was up to no good. He was at fault when he went after Martin even though the police dispatcher told him not to. I don't think anybody would disagree with that. If Zimmerman had just come up and shot Martin, he would be at fault. If he had confronted Martin and then shot him before anything else happened, he would be at fault. But what seemed to happen is that he confronted Martin and Martin acted in self-defense and attacked Zimmerman. In the resulting struggle, Zimmerman sustained injuries to the face and back of the head, and he ended up shooting Martin. It's an unfortunate series of events for Martin--he was being followed by a shady person he didn't know, then acted in what he viewed as self-defense against that man. Zimmerman was being racist when he stereotyped Martin. He was being jumpy and irresponsible when he went after Martin. But he acted in self-defense when he shot Martin while being beaten up. One has to assume that if Martin hadn't acted in that way, Zimmerman would not have shot him, but you can't blame Martin to act in self-defense, and you can't blame Zimmerman for acting in self-defense when he fired that gun. Blame Zimmerman for being racist, blame Zimmerman for being irresponsible but the trial was whether Zimmerman had acted in self-defense and the jury ruled that that was what happened, even if one of the jurors said that it was murder.

But in your logic, both Zimmerman and Trayvon had a legal right to use lethal force agains the other person. Which is a darwinistic view of law and justice. Saying that everyone has the right to kill someone they're threatened by, regardless of circumstances, is just being irresponsible.

I don't want people getting into fights and then the winner being able to get off scott free simply by virtue of being the winner. I want people to get off because they were acting responsibly and the way a good citizen should under the circumstances.



responsibly and the way a good citizen should under the circumstances.

Trayvon was attacked by George, and responded defensively. George felt like he was in danger because of this, and killed Trayvon, even though he was the one who provoked Trayvon in the first place. And it wasn't because of a misunderstanding, it wasn't because George was doing something that was perceived by Trayvon as something different from what it actually was.

The only reason george felt like he was in danger is because he apparently couldn't beat Trayvon in a fight. It wasn't because the confrontation was occuring, it was because of how the confrontation was playing out. He did everything he could that night to heighten the danger for everyone involved. That is not how a lawful citizen is supposed to act.

 

[neogaffer1]

But in your logic, both Zimmerman and Trayvon had a legal right to use lethal force agains the other person. Which is a darwinistic view of law and justice. Saying that everyone has the right to kill someone they're threatened by, regardless of circumstances, is just being irresponsible.

I don't want people getting into fights and then the winner being able to get off scott free simply by virtue of being the winner. I want people to get off because they were acting responsibly and the way a good citizen should under the circumstances.

Last post I'll make in this thread, but I'm not saying that people have the right to get into fights, kill the other person, and then get off scott free. I'm saying that the series of events put the fault squarely at Zimmerman's feet until the confrontation got violent. At that point of time, Zimmerman acted in self-defense. If he had shot at Martin and missed, and then Martin attacked him, Zimmerman would be at fault. If Zimmerman had actively and knowingly acted aggressively in a manner to push Martin towards violence so that Zimmerman could shoot him, Zimmerman would be to blame. And in the series of events the jury agreed with, Zimmerman's actions only turned violent when he was attacked, and he was attacked by someone who viewed themselves as being in danger.

 

[Toxi]

Also, saying Trayvon was an "innocent child" might be technically correct but it's a very loaded phrase and so that's why I can see someone arguing to not use that.

I'm sorry the truth is biased so that we describe innocent children as innocent children.

To fake lawyer-AGE I wanna apologice for using loaded words like "child with candy", I was not aware of the aparently unrealistic narrative it sets up, next time I will use more appropiate terms like "troubled youth" or Georgie's favorite (which I not doubt is not racist at all) "these punks".

It's fucking ridiculous that people like David Wong and neogaffer think calling Trayvon Martin a child is evidence of some bias. They think treating him as a human being is too much.

Of course not, he murdered a child, a sweet, 5ft 11 child.

Do you not understand how the english language works?

Trayvon Martin had none of the legal rights and responsibilities an adult has. He could not vote, he could not join the army, he could not serve on a jury, he could not even buy a pack of cigs. And now he will never be able to do those things.

 

[googleplex]

Last post I'll make in this thread, but I'm not saying that people have the right to get into fights, kill the other person, and then get off scott free. I'm saying that the series of events put the fault squarely at Zimmerman's feet until the confrontation got violent. At that point of time, Zimmerman acted in self-defense. If he had shot at Martin and missed, and then Martin attacked him, Zimmerman would be at fault. If Zimmerman had actively and knowingly acted aggressively in a manner to push Martin towards violence so that Zimmerman could shoot him, Zimmerman would be to blame. And in the series of events the jury agreed with, Zimmerman's actions only turned violent when he was attacked, and he was attacked by someone who viewed themselves as being in danger.

This make no sense what so ever. Zimmerman is to blame for starting an unnecessary conflict, but Travon's death is not?

 

[GaimeGuy]

Last post I'll make in this thread, but I'm not saying that people have the right to get into fights, kill the other person, and then get off scott free. I'm saying that the series of events put the fault squarely at Zimmerman's feet until the confrontation got violent. At that point of time, Zimmerman acted in self-defense. If he had shot at Martin and missed, and then Martin attacked him, Zimmerman would be at fault. If Zimmerman had actively and knowingly acted aggressively in a manner to push Martin towards violence so that Zimmerman could shoot him, Zimmerman would be to blame. And in the series of events the jury agreed with, Zimmerman's actions only turned violent when he was attacked, and he was attacked by someone who viewed themselves as being in danger.

An incredibly narrow view of defense that, again, completely ignores circumstances. Trayvon had every reason to believe he was in danger, and acted accordingly. George had no reason to act threateningly towards Trayvon, to follow him around in his car, to chase him down on foot when he moved away from the roads. And the injuries george sustained were not life threatening in any manner, which suggests he was also mistaken or hasty in resorting to lethal force.

Nothing he did was responsible. And when the result of this is someone's death, a minor's, nonetheless, you have to be held accountable. He was not.

Self-defense if an affirmative defense. It's saying that yes, you took everything away from someone, but they had it coming, and the state should be willing to, after-the-fact, excuse you for giving yourself such power over the other person. Not only that they were in the wrong, but that you acted in a manner under the circumstances that excuse your self-appointment as executioner, and writes their death off as a tragic circumstantial event that, while unfortunate, does not need to be rectified by society.

 

[studyguy]

For a second I though this was about this guy

What IS he doing by the way?

Also as far as this is concerned, I wouldn't wish bankruptcy/homelessness on anyone.
As someone who's family is having a tough time financially, it's really not anything to wish on people casually.
I'd extend that to people I don't have a favorable view of.

 

[FrostuTheNinja]

What IS he doing by the way?

Probably eating bug shit and pickled fetuses.

 

[terrene]

I'm not saying that people have the right to get into fights, kill the other person, and then get off scott free. I'm saying that the series of events put the fault squarely at Zimmerman's feet until the confrontation got violent. At that point of time, Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

In other words, either black people don't have the right to self-defense, or whoever makes it out of a deadly confrontation alive gets to claim "self-defense," THEN they can get off scott-free.

 

[ICKE]

Trayvon had every reason to believe he was in danger, and acted accordingly..

Since when is causing bodily harm to someone who follows you "acting accordingly"?

And the injuries george sustained were not life threatening in any manner, which suggests he was also mistaken or hasty in resorting to lethal force.

I agree with this, though the law states that you need to have a reasonable fear of....great bodily harm and the defense managed to argue successfully. Zimmerman would have faced prison time in most western countries no doubt.

 

[Jigorath]

Last post I'll make in this thread, but I'm not saying that people have the right to get into fights, kill the other person, and then get off scott free. I'm saying that the series of events put the fault squarely at Zimmerman's feet until the confrontation got violent. At that point of time, Zimmerman acted in self-defense. If he had shot at Martin and missed, and then Martin attacked him, Zimmerman would be at fault. If Zimmerman had actively and knowingly acted aggressively in a manner to push Martin towards violence so that Zimmerman could shoot him, Zimmerman would be to blame. And in the series of events the jury agreed with, Zimmerman's actions only turned violent when he was attacked, and he was attacked by someone who viewed themselves as being in danger.

If some asshole was stalking me for no reason I'd knock the fucker out too.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

I'm a 17-year-old male

And this is where everyone should have stopped entertaining his foolishness.